Awsome, millions of dollars of tax payer money soon to be wasted in court overturning this unconstitutional law. Can will start billing the congress critters who vote for clearly unconstitutional laws? Make them pay for the costs of their political campaigning.

Maybe legislators are being completely rational here. It'll cost millions of dollars to fight and lose in court, but that's years down the line. Being seen doing something will pay dividends for the types of voters they're trying to keep satisfied.

Then, when the law is thrown out, they can bitch and moan again about activist judges.

Maybe legislators are being completely rational here. It'll cost millions of dollars to fight and lose in court, but that's years down the line. Being seen doing something will pay dividends for the types of voters they're trying to keep satisfied.

Then, when the law is thrown out, they can bitch and moan again about activist judges.

This. It is political gamesmanship. Christie will be on to bigger and better things by the time the law is thrown out. Its short term gain with these sort of things.

Chris Christie wrote:

“We must address the many different contributing factors... This is just common sense and means that parents and legal guardians are actively engaged and aware of the kinds of games their kids are buying and renting."

If "appeal to common sense" isn't a logical fallacy yet, I think it deserves consideration. It could be defined along the lines of "appealing to a well-known consensus of knowledge that actually doesn't exist".

I have a hard time swallowing regulations on personal choices like that from a man who fails so horrifically at regulating his own donut intake.

Yeah, because fat jokes are a good way to voice your intelligent argument on the subject.

What specific personal choices of yours are being regulated exactly by the way? Are you of age to buy M/AO games? Probably not considering your childish comments. However if you were, then there is nothing being regulated here.

I really don't get what is unconstitutional about preventing minors from purchasing something made for adults. We do it with tobacco, alcohol, porn, guns, movies, etc.

In my eyes, the harder it is for young people to get M rated games, the better game developers can make M rated games for the intended audience.

I have a hard time swallowing regulations on personal choices like that from a man who fails so horrifically at regulating his own donut intake.

Yeah, because fat jokes are a good way to voice your intelligent argument on the subject.

What specific personal choices of yours are being regulated exactly by the way? Are you of age to buy M/AO games? Probably not considering your childish comments. However if you were, then there is nothing being regulated here.

I really don't get what is unconstitutional about preventing minors from purchasing something made for adults. We do it with tobacco, alcohol, porn, guns, movies, etc.

In my eyes, the harder it is for young people to get M rated games, the better game developers can make M rated games for the intended audience.

Why? Because Constitution.

And no, we do not legislate against movies. We have a MPAA rating system enforced by theaters. Not by police. Funny thing, video games do basically the same thing.

Additionally, we do not legislate against books. Or poetry. Or artwork. Or the Press. Or opinions.

But you know who did? Nazi Germany.

There is a massive difference between video games and whatever you listed.

I'm all for keeping mature and adults-only video games out of the hands of minors... And, um - yeah: reasonable, common sense standards for legally procuring a firearm, should you elect to exercise your right to do so... But I have yet to read any scientifically bolstered report that equates "violent video games" with the number of crimes commited annually - anywhere - by people using *real* firearms.

I can find crazy hysteria everywhere proclaiming that letting your kids play a video game with a gun in it, will eat their minds and turn them into psychotic murder-machines when they grow up... or that young adults who play too much Modern Warfare secretly plot to kill their neighbors every second they're NOT playing Modern Warfare. Really? I thought this type of nonsense thinking was already old, broke and busted. That politicians wouldn't be bothered with the argument "Videogames = Violence Hurr Derr..." because the newer (younger) voter demographic has played video games probably their whole lives (or knows plenty of friends who do, etc.), people are more educated, and yes - because science fucking laughs at any of these wild claims.

Best of luck with your new platform, Govenor. You well and truly disappoint me. The video game market has done fine enforcing it's own policies, and last time I checked, people wanted LESS government in their lives - not some new do-nothing legislation that divides its existence between trying to solve a problem already fixed, and stoking the flames of rather obvious fear mongering. We've already had a rough week. Don't add to it with this B.S., please.

I'm all for keeping mature and adults-only video games out of the hands of minors... And, um - yeah: reasonable, common sense standards for legally procuring a firearm, should you elect to exercise your right to do so... But I have yet to read any scientifically bolstered report that equates "violent video games" with the number of crimes commited annually - anywhere - by people using *real* firearms.

I can find crazy hysteria everywhere proclaiming that letting your kids play a video game with a gun in it, will eat their minds and turn them into psychotic murder-machines when they grow up... or that young adults who play too much Modern Warfare secretly plot to kill their neighbors every second they're NOT playing Modern Warfare. Really? I thought this type of nonsense thinking was already old, broke and busted. That politicians wouldn't be bothered with the argument "Videogames = Violence Hurr Derr..." because the newer (younger) voter demographic has played video games probably their whole lives (or knows plenty of friends who do, etc.), people are more educated, and yes - because science fucking laughs at any of these wild claims.

Best of luck with your new platform, Govenor. You well and truly disappoint me. The video game market has done fine enforcing it's own policies, and last time I checked, people wanted LESS government in their lives - not some new do-nothing legislation that divides its existence between trying to solve a problem already fixed, and stoking the flames of rather obvious fear mongering. We've already had a rough week. Don't add to it with this B.S., please.

But that's the dichotomy of these socially-conservative libertarians, don't you see? They don't want government to interfere in their morally-dubious but highly-sanctified business decisions - but they'll double the size of the government to try to expand the "ideal" of the 2.5-With-Picket-Fence hallucination they keep trying to insist is American reality.

Not to mention the cognitive dissonance of their business decisions which rebut and undercut their moral pedestal.

My parents knew about every single game I got when I was growing up. If parents are really unaware as to the content of the video-games their children play, and thus how their children spend a good chunk of their time, they're frankly bad parents in my opinion, or at least disinterested parents. You aren't going to be able to legislate a fix to that where it really matters.

As for video-games specifically, the game industry already regulates itself pretty well on that score. For a governor that's touted as a no-nonsense guy by his supporters, this is a strangely political move.

Maybe legislators are being completely rational here. It'll cost millions of dollars to fight and lose in court, but that's years down the line. Being seen doing something will pay dividends for the types of voters they're trying to keep satisfied.

Then, when the law is thrown out, they can bitch and moan again about activist judges.

They don't have to pay for it, so they don't give a shit.

We just had something similar go down here where our governor said she would fight the courts decision all the way to the supreme court. It's because she does not have to pay for it.

Every time the poli's want to take something to court, if they lose they should pay a fine.

I have a hard time swallowing regulations on personal choices like that from a man who fails so horrifically at regulating his own donut intake.

Yeah, because fat jokes are a good way to voice your intelligent argument on the subject.

I'd love to see the uproar if Christie was dismissed because he was a woman. Or gay. Or a Muslim. Or Hispanic.

"Lulz his mouth is open so wide, and I don't even see a cock in there!!"

So, what I took from this was: we should start a rumor that Christie is a Muslim, Hispanic lesbian, so people will stop listening to him. Genius! I'm sure it'll stick, at least for some dimwits out there. I mean, it worked with Obama, right?

I have a hard time swallowing regulations on personal choices like that from a man who fails so horrifically at regulating his own donut intake.

Yeah, because fat jokes are a good way to voice your intelligent argument on the subject.

What specific personal choices of yours are being regulated exactly by the way? Are you of age to buy M/AO games? Probably not considering your childish comments. However if you were, then there is nothing being regulated here.

I really don't get what is unconstitutional about preventing minors from purchasing something made for adults. We do it with tobacco, alcohol, porn, guns, movies, etc.

In my eyes, the harder it is for young people to get M rated games, the better game developers can make M rated games for the intended audience.

Why? Because Constitution.

And no, we do not legislate against movies. We have a MPAA rating system enforced by theaters. Not by police. Funny thing, video games do basically the same thing.

Additionally, we do not legislate against books. Or poetry. Or artwork. Or the Press. Or opinions.

But you know who did? Nazi Germany.

There is a massive difference between video games and whatever you listed.

We do legislate against allowing minors access to some books and movies. You can be charged for letting minors see/buy sexually explicit material, (past a certain degree of explicitness).

I'm genuinely confused as to why the prevailing opinion seems to be that age restrictions on games are evil and unconstitutional.

Aren't films age restricted in the US? Why should games be any different?

There are certainly games I've played as an adult that I know would have had negative effects on me had I played them as a child, just as I wish I'd never watched Nightmare On Elm Street on TV when I was 7 years old and in hospital.

Age restriction on all content designed for adults is important, surely?

I'm genuinely confused as to why the prevailing opinion seems to be that age restrictions on games are evil and unconstitutional.

Aren't films age restricted in the US? Why should games be any different?

There are certainly games I've played as an adult that I know would have had negative effects on me had I played them as a child, just as I wish I'd never watched Nightmare On Elm Street on TV when I was 7 years old and in hospital.

Age restriction on all content designed for adults is important, surely?

Movie ratings aren't done by the government, the MPAA is a private organization and the theaters voluntarily comply with it's ratings. JUst as the group that rates games is a private organization.

The one exception, as I noted elsewhere is sexually explicit material, which is against the law to sell to minors in many, (if not all), states.

Awsome, millions of dollars of tax payer money soon to be wasted in court overturning this unconstitutional law. Can will start billing the congress critters who vote for clearly unconstitutional laws? Make them pay for the costs of their political campaigning.

We even already have a legal precedent for when other parties clearly waste the court's time. Of course, in this case, the state congress sort of acts like an LLC, putting a degree of separation between the institution and its members.

Why are states allowed to prohibit sales of pornographic material to minors but not material depicting violence, or any other material deemed unfit for children at [X] point in history?

Serious question, seems rather arbitrary.

Because pornography is not protected by the first amendment, for now.

I suspect at some point in the future, it will be ruled to be protected, at which point it will all be over.

Pornography is actually protected speech, as long as it's not "obscene:" http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_pfa.html Apparently, it's OK for the state to restrict the sale/distribution of pornography to children, but not adults, due to the principle of "variable obscenity," i.e. something that is obscene for a child is not necessarily obscene for adults (and is therefore protected speech).

Movie ratings aren't done by the government, the MPAA is a private organization and the theaters voluntarily comply with it's ratings. JUst as the group that rates games is a private organization.

The one exception, as I noted elsewhere is sexually explicit material, which is against the law to sell to minors in many, (if not all), states.

Oh I see.

But.. don't you want legal protection on adult content? Do you really see not giving minors access to adult content as an attack on free speech?

It's really not. Making it so that you can't legally sell age inappropriate things to minors actually PROTECTS the rights of adults to have those things available at all.

And apart from anything else, I think its possible the framers of the constitution may not have known that the Saw films and Manhunt type games were coming.

I actually didn't express an opinion either way on the matter.

As a parent I've found what is ok for one child may not be for another, a lot should be left up to the parent. For example even at a young age my son was ok with violent games and movies that involved monsters, (DOOM, Resident Evil, Dead Space, etc), because he understood monsters don't exist. More realistic stuff, (Silence of the Lambs, Dexter, etc) did disturb him because while he knew they were fiction, he also knew serial killers do exist.

While I happen to agree with Kyle's position in the article, it's clearly an opinion piece as much as a news story. Doesn't Ars try to identify op-ed as distinct from news? Nothing against Kyle, I just mention this so I won't feel like a hypocrite when I gripe at an article who's opinion I don't like.

When a politician invokes "common sense" you can lay odds it's because they have no factual justification for what they're proposing. The video game proposal is a total squandering of resources and intrusion on personal choice for no demonstrable benefit. We just went through this with the whole gun control business. A tragic shooting happens and the politicians all race to propose new laws that would have no effect on gun violence and then accuse anyone opposed to them of supporting the slaughter of innocent children.

I have a hard time swallowing regulations on personal choices like that from a man who fails so horrifically at regulating his own donut intake.

Yeah, because fat jokes are a good way to voice your intelligent argument on the subject.

What specific personal choices of yours are being regulated exactly by the way? Are you of age to buy M/AO games? Probably not considering your childish comments. However if you were, then there is nothing being regulated here.

I really don't get what is unconstitutional about preventing minors from purchasing something made for adults. We do it with tobacco, alcohol, porn, guns, movies, etc.

In my eyes, the harder it is for young people to get M rated games, the better game developers can make M rated games for the intended audience.

I dont know, I think the system in place is perfectly fine already. I'm in my late twenties and I regularly get carded for video games, but I do not get carded for cigarettes or alcohol anymore. And really, we all know about parents that go out there and BUY these games for their kids(mostly poorly informed people that later blame problems on said games) so whats to stop that? now that may be anecdotal and hear say, but being able to legally purchase M games for 10 years now and in 3 different states, still running into getting carded just doesnt seem anecdotal to me.